Vote 'yes' for better St. Paul streets

Opinion editor's note: Editorials represent the opinions of the Star Tribune Editorial Board, which operates independently from the newsroom.

•••

Reasons to oppose the ballot question that St. Paul voters will decide in the Nov. 7 election are easy to conjure. That question: Should the city of St. Paul impose a 1% sales tax increase over the next 20 years to repair streets and bridges and improve park facilities?

Much harder is coming up with a feasible alternative for reversing the deterioration of streets, bridges and parks in Minnesota's capital city. We don't see one.

We share the assessment that St. Paul City Council candidate Anika Bowie recently gave editorial writers: A sales tax increase is the "least worst option" for the city's infrastructure. We urge its approval.

Critics of a 1% sales tax increase on some purchases in St. Paul (in Minnesota, groceries, clothing, prescription drugs and some services are sales-tax exempt) are not wrong. It's true that such a tax would impose a competitive burden on the city's retailers, giving St. Paul the highest sales tax rate in the state, 9.875%. But several other jurisdictions, including Minneapolis, are less than a percentage point behind.

The sales tax is regressive, disproportionately burdening lower-income households. It would set a precedent for other retail-rich cities in the state to look out for themselves, easing pressure on the state Legislature to live up to its half-century commitment to help fund municipal services throughout the state according to measurable need. Retail-poor communities could wind up poorer still as a result.

But if the existing pressure on state government were sufficient to keep state aid flowing at inflation-adjusted 20th-century levels, St. Paul would be receiving tens of millions of dollars more in local government aid this year. Instead, it is receiving slightly less than was allocated in 2002.

The progressive income tax is not an option available to St. Paul or any other city in Minnesota. Individual property assessments for street maintenance, long a tool employed in St. Paul, have now been outlawed by court order. Other city services in St. Paul are far from flush with resources.

That has left the city with two unsatisfactory options: a large property tax increase or continued neglect. The property tax is even more regressive than the sales tax. In St. Paul, property taxes on a median-value home have already swelled dramatically in recent years, growing more than three times faster than inflation since 2005. Politically, a big bump in property taxes is a non-starter.

Neglect also carries a steep cost. Vehicle damage caused by potholes was commonplace this spring and summer. Less obvious, but perhaps more economically damaging in the long run, is the impression of decay that crumbling infrastructure creates, deterring investment.

And without repair, bad roads get worse. According to a city website, streets that should be rebuilt every 60 years are on a 124-year replacement cycle in St. Paul. A 2022 study of average pavement condition in the city projected that it would fall from "fair to poor" to "very poor" in the next 20 years.

A few good words can be said about the "least worst" option. The sales tax would be dedicated by law to its stated purposes. It would expire in 20 years and could disappear sooner via action of the mayor and City Council. It is a revenue source that tends to keep pace with inflation. And it allows the city's visitors to share the cost of maintaining infrastructure they use.

St. Paul's streets were in alarmingly poor condition this year. Miss this chance to jump-start their improvement, and they could further deteriorate even as property taxes soar higher. Voters should spare the capital city that unworthy fate.

•••

For more on the Nov. 7 elections, see the Star Tribune newsroom's voter guides for Minneapolis and St. Paul. See also our full list of endorsements in City Council races in Minneapolis and St. Paul. The Editorial Board operates separately from the newsroom, and no news editors or reporters were involved in the endorsement process.